The influence of maxillary sinus augmentation on the success of dental implants through second-stage surgery

Do Clinical and Radiological Assessments Contribute to the Understanding of Biomaterials? Results From a Prospective Randomized Sinus Augmentation Split-Mouth Trial

The present prospective randomized split-mouth trial reports on the 3-year clinical and radiological follow-up investigation of implants placed 7 months after sinus augmentation with 2 different bone substitute materials. The aim of the study was to complete the histologic observation of cellular reactions by analyses of the implants and the volumetric changes of the augmented bone substitute materials. A sinus augmentation split-mouth trial was performed in 14 patients with the synthetic bone substitute material Nanobone (NB) and the xenogeneic Bio-Oss (BO). Changes in volume and density of the augmented biomaterials were investigated by analysis of computed tomography scans, taken immediately after augmentation and after 7 months. Clinical implant parameters were assessed after 3 years of loading. Both bone substitute materials underwent nonsignificant volume reduction and significant increase in bone density over an integration period of 7 months. No significant differences concerning volume and bone density were observed between the groups. Three years after loading, 51 of 53 implants were in situ with no peri-implant infections, and only a few soft-tissue variations were present. The present prospective randomized study showed that no differences could be observed clinically and radiologically. Accordingly, it seems that both biomaterials, independent of their physicochemical composition, enable clinical success and long-time stability for dental implants. Interestingly, the histological results showed distinct differences in cellular reactions: While the xenogeneic BO induced a mild tissue reaction with only few multinucleated giant cells and comparably low vascularization, the synthetic NB induced a multinucleated giant cell-triggered tissue reaction with an increase of vascularization. Thus, the present study showed that a combination analysis-histological, clinical, and radiological-is necessary for a detailed assessment of a biomaterial's quality for clinical application.

Nanocrystalline Hydroxyapatite-Based Material Already Contributes to Implant Stability After 3 Months: A Clinical and Radiologic 3-Year Follow-up Investigation

The present study reports on a 3-year clinical and radiologic follow-up investigation of dental implants placed 3 and 6 months after sinus augmentation in 14 patients. Augmentation was performed with a synthetic bone substitute material composed of nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite. The aim of the study was to determine how the integration period of the bone substitute material, that is, 3 months or 6 months, influences implant integration within the patient's upper jaw. Therefore, the following clinical and radiologic parameters were investigated: implant being in situ; Periotest value; and presence of peri-implant osteolysis, bleeding on probing, plaque, and soft tissue recession around the implants. At the follow-up investigation 3 years after placement, 23 of 24 implants were in situ and suitable for prosthetic rehabilitation. No implants in either study group were mobile or showed peri-implant osteolysis. Only a few implants showed plaque or soft tissue variations. Within its limits, the present study showed comparable clinical performance of dental implants placed 3 months after sinus floor augmentation to implants placed 6 months after augmentation. The results of all investigated parameters were in accordance with results found in the literature. It can be concluded that augmentation with the applied synthetic bone substitute material already forms a sufficient implantation bed 3 months after augmentation, which enables long-term, stable, implant-retained restoration. These findings might contribute to a reduced healing time after augmentation, which would be favorable for patients and clinicians.

A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the survival rate of grafts and implants placed with sinus floor elevation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted to identify studies on sinus floor elevation, with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year after functional loading.

RESULTS

The search provided 839 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 175 articles resulting in 48 studies that met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 12,020 implants. Meta-analysis indicated an estimated annual failure rate of 3.48% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.48%-4.88%] translating into a 3-year implant survival of 90.1% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%). However, when failure rates was analyzed on the subject level, the estimated annual failure was 6.04% (95% CI: 3.87%-9.43%) translating into 16.6% (95% CI: 10.9%-24.6%) of the subjects experiencing implant loss over 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The insertion of dental implants in combination with maxillary sinus floor elevation is a predictable treatment method showing high implant survival rates and low incidences of surgical complications. The best results (98.3% implant survival after 3 years) were obtained using rough surface implants with membrane coverage of the lateral window.

Regeneration statt Reparation

Autogenous bone transfer is still regarded as the "golden standard" for many indications in oral and cranio-maxillofacial surgery. In this overview, the status of the autogenous bone is re-evaluated under consideration of current research results, clinical long-term studies, risks and safety of the patient as well as the costs. Due to the further development of modern bone substitute materials, which reveal in parts superior long-term results for special indications, the routine use of autogenous bone has to be critically reviewed.

The influence of preoperative antibiotics on success of endosseous implants up to and including stage II surgery: a study of 2,641 implants

According to the American College of Surgeons, complex oral surgical procedures, including the transoral placement of endosseous implants, are of the type that may require prophylactic antibiotics. However, the routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in the field of dental implantology continues to be controversial, and their utilization varies widely. No data from a randomized prospective clinical study of the prophylactic use of antibiotics in implant surgery have been previously published. As part of the comprehensive Dental Implant Clinical Research Group clinical implant study, the preoperative or postoperative use of antibiotics, the type used, and the duration of coverage was left to the discretion of the surgeon. These data were recorded and correlated with failure of osseointegration during healing (stage I) and at stage II surgery (uncovering). The results showed that significantly fewer failures occurred when preoperative antibiotics were used.